Original Posted By: BARNSTMR(at)aol.com
Pietenpol-List: Early Corvair engines
Re: Pietenpol-List: Magneto stuff
Original Posted By: del magsam
RE: Pietenpol-List: Magneto stuff
Original Posted By:> owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Usually, the left hand mag has an impulse coupling that retards thespark timing for starting. This is normally evident by an additionalmechanism on the drive end.> -----Original Message-----
Usually, the left hand mag has an impulse coupling that retards thespark timing for starting. This is normally evident by an additionalmechanism on the drive end.> -----Original Message-----
Re: Pietenpol-List: Early Corvair engines
Original Posted By: "Ron Hargrove"
It's not that they aren't suitable, but the later models produce much morepower for the same weight.Bernie used a '60 because back in '60 when he did it it was pretty hard tocome across a '65. They were awfully rare. :)The 60-64's are lower horsepower versions. The main difference being thestroke is shorter giving less displacement.Starting in '64 some engines were the larger 164cu.in. Then from '65 onthey are all 164cu.in.It makes no sense to build an early engine for 2 reasons that come to mindright off the bat.1. Horsepower - why go with less horsepower for the same weight as a morepowerful engine???2. Engine parts - I do not believe there is an OT-10 cam available for thesmaller engine nor is there any forged pistons. ( I would never fly behind acorvair with stock cast pistons.)Expect to get no more than 60hp or so to the prop on an early model and near100hp on a late model. (at the RPMs a Piet swings a prop)DJ----- Original Message -----
It's not that they aren't suitable, but the later models produce much morepower for the same weight.Bernie used a '60 because back in '60 when he did it it was pretty hard tocome across a '65. They were awfully rare. :)The 60-64's are lower horsepower versions. The main difference being thestroke is shorter giving less displacement.Starting in '64 some engines were the larger 164cu.in. Then from '65 onthey are all 164cu.in.It makes no sense to build an early engine for 2 reasons that come to mindright off the bat.1. Horsepower - why go with less horsepower for the same weight as a morepowerful engine???2. Engine parts - I do not believe there is an OT-10 cam available for thesmaller engine nor is there any forged pistons. ( I would never fly behind acorvair with stock cast pistons.)Expect to get no more than 60hp or so to the prop on an early model and near100hp on a late model. (at the RPMs a Piet swings a prop)DJ----- Original Message -----
Re: Pietenpol-List: Magneto stuff
Original Posted By: "Ed Smith"
Something to add about magnetos,,,Since the "flat" gear on the Eisemannmagneto is so expensive, for the impulse side, my Mentor built me a mag withan impulse and the "deep" gear. Then he made a collar with "fits" thethickness of the difference, so everything would run true.Just needed two gaskets and long studs to secure it.It's fine on an Experimental, and works great. Now with 50 or so hours onthe engine, it starts with a simple flip with the left mag selected.PS Think the flat gear is over $500.00 retail, while the deep gear is adime a dozen.walt evansNX140DL----- Original Message -----
Something to add about magnetos,,,Since the "flat" gear on the Eisemannmagneto is so expensive, for the impulse side, my Mentor built me a mag withan impulse and the "deep" gear. Then he made a collar with "fits" thethickness of the difference, so everything would run true.Just needed two gaskets and long studs to secure it.It's fine on an Experimental, and works great. Now with 50 or so hours onthe engine, it starts with a simple flip with the left mag selected.PS Think the flat gear is over $500.00 retail, while the deep gear is adime a dozen.walt evansNX140DL----- Original Message -----
Re: Pietenpol-List: Early Corvair engines
Original Posted By: Ron Hargrove
In a word, more Power. The later engines 1964 and later are 164 cubic inches.1964 kinda being the oddball year with early style heads and the long stroke.1961 to 1963 are 145 and the 1960 engines are 140. The primary difference isStroke. The cases are all the same. Pistons are different from small to largedue to pin height. Barrels will interchange (1960 to 1964) if you notch thebottom of the barrel to clear the crank. Early barrels with late heads needto have the head shimmed to fit the barrel. Late barrels will not work withearly heads. The engine that you should be looking for is a 110 Horsepower. There were lots made and are readily available. Find some one in your area thatis a member of CORSA ( the corvair club) or that owns corvairs and they willprobably steer you in the right direction. Older country salvage yards mighteven have one. By the way CORSA does have a web site with a classified section.Jim DallasMember of CORSA, MCCA3 Corvair ConvertiblesA Piet project in progressA Hatz project in progress ----- Original Message -----
In a word, more Power. The later engines 1964 and later are 164 cubic inches.1964 kinda being the oddball year with early style heads and the long stroke.1961 to 1963 are 145 and the 1960 engines are 140. The primary difference isStroke. The cases are all the same. Pistons are different from small to largedue to pin height. Barrels will interchange (1960 to 1964) if you notch thebottom of the barrel to clear the crank. Early barrels with late heads needto have the head shimmed to fit the barrel. Late barrels will not work withearly heads. The engine that you should be looking for is a 110 Horsepower. There were lots made and are readily available. Find some one in your area thatis a member of CORSA ( the corvair club) or that owns corvairs and they willprobably steer you in the right direction. Older country salvage yards mighteven have one. By the way CORSA does have a web site with a classified section.Jim DallasMember of CORSA, MCCA3 Corvair ConvertiblesA Piet project in progressA Hatz project in progress ----- Original Message -----